Giving Away Puppy and the GPL

[Chuck the Plant]

I hope this is the right forum for this...

I've been using Puppy for about 2 months. It's amazing! You guys are creating something special here...

Puppy's so good I want to give it away to friends and family who don't have broadband access. I want to distribute the Puppy binary and remain compliant with the GPL. I've read the license carefully. Is there somewhere I can download the complete source to distribute with it? Or is the forwarding offer covered under 3.3 of the GPL included somewhere in Puppy and I've just missed it?

Also, are programs like Mozilla and Opera under the GPL? If not, what are the terms for distributing free but non-GPL components of Puppy with Puppy?

I've never distributed Linux so I'm a little in the dark here. Don't want to be a GPL-zealot, but I do think its important to protect Linux, so I want to know how to give Puppy away. Any help from the community would be appreciated.

Long live the Puppy!

[Pizzasgood]

Just give it away. Even if there were catches, I highly doubt Barry's going to complain

Mozilla is covered, I don't know about Opera.

Just remember though. Puppy isn't Microsoft. Nobody's gonna hunt you down if you give it away. You can download it, burn 80 copies, throw them at people from the top of a moving vehicle, and you will be congratulated for it (well, maybe not the thowing at people part).

[Bruce B]

Respectfully, I think you have an over inflated ego. In all my posts I've not spoken to anyone so directly as you.

#1 I don't believe you have enough clout to harm Linux.

#2 Who do you think you are that you fancy yourself as a distributor simply because you pass out Linux CD discs? In the heirarchy of distributors you are very low on the food chain.

------------------

The glue (scripts) that makes Puppy what it is - is already on the CD disc in open source form had you have taken the time to look.

Most binaries are compiled from GPL software. Are you having a hard time finding the source code for a specific binary or two. Maybe we can help.

Do you think that a Linux distro has to include the binary source code?

Do you think a Linux distro has to be pure GPL?

If so, how do you explain OpenOffice?

Do you think a Linux distro can't include proprietary software?

If so, how do you explain Opera or Macromedia Flash Player or Real Networks players and plugins?

[Lobster]

Yes Chuck you can make copies and give Puppy away. You are free to do so. In fact even Linux versions that are charged for have to provide a freely available version. What you pay for is the support. Opera is free - you can copy it and give it away but it is closed source. That is we do not know how it is written (the source code is not available for download).

You can download Sizzler (Puppy 1.0.6) and make as many copies as you have family and friends. That is a kind thought.


http://puppylinux.org/wikka/License

[gliezl]

" Knowledge belongs to the world." - quoted from the movie Antitrust

[MU]

>Do you think that a Linux distro has to include the binary source code?

Yes.
If it does not include it, it has to be provided somehow else.
For example you had to add a seperate Webpage.
This concerns Code under the GPL2, that is very strict.

So far the theory.
In practice, nobody will blame Barry, if he does not add the source by default.
In the last month, there were some juristic struggles concerning that, but they do not target on Distributors like Barry, but on commercial Salesmen, that sell modified versions of GPL'ed Software as closed source (without even mentioning what projects they used).
A popular example was a Set-Top-Box using mplayer and a PowerPC-emulator.

Puppy is quite different.
It started as a binary Distribution, a collection of binaries taken from vector, Mandrake and so on.
It never tried to make a secret of what programs were taken (Not "Puppyword", but "Abiword").
Now that we have usr_devx.sfs, more and more Software is compiled especially for Puppy, what makes it easier to supply the source

--
This was the GPL-Part.
Some parts of Puppy have a different license.
PuppyBasic for example is LGPL , the "Library" or "Lesser" GPL (less strict than GPL).

You can modify it without releasing the source of the modifications you made.

Opera: I don't know. Read the License.
SUN: I think you even cannot add JAVA to a Distro without SUNs permission.
I will add it to a usr_more.sfs anyway, as I have seen, that other projects add it too.
SUN seems to tolerate that, as long as their commercial interests are not affected.

Mark

[seldomseen]

Interesting comments from BruceB here, but then considering most of us probably came from that other OS that I won't name (and I'm not leaving the Windows of opportunity open here), Chuck The Plant's questions become quite legit.

What kind of an answer would you get should you ask that same question to the developers of That Other Operating System? And one person with a CD burner is even less of a threat to that monolith.

I've given away copies of various Linux distros (including many Puppies) to friends, and one of the reactions I get is, "you mean you can DO this?" With Linux, you're just putting the word out and you're quite welcome to do so. If you do this with That Other Operating System, you're a software pirate, probably worse, and shouldn't be surprised when the lead developer and CEO (who shall also remain nameless) litiGATES you like crazy.

[Chuck the Plant]

Dear Puppy Pen Pals,

Thank all of you for the knowledge you've supplied. Puppy is fast becoming my favorite Linux distro. The community, like the OS, seems very friendly and helpful.

Bruce B, I promise my questions were at best well intentioned and at worst harmless. My comments about not wanting to hurt Linux were based on my (incomplete) understanding that the GPL functions by replicating itself throughout Linux and Open Source versions and modifications. I didn't want to give Linux or other software away without that legal protection that keeps proprietary software manufacturers from using open-source code for their own closed source development.

You're right about my over-inflated ego, though.

My appreciation for the prompt responses. Just as a matter of curiosity, where does one get the Puppy source for 1.0.6? I'm trying to learn more about the guts of Linux.

[rarsa]

Chuck,

One of the many things to understand about linux distros is their definition. Here in my own words: "A distribution is a colection of applications, utilities, script and content bound around the Linux kernel"

A distribution is not a monolitic application. You do not 'compile' a distribution. It is a colection of individual applications.

What this means is that if you want the source for jwm, you go to the jwm web page and download the source code. If you want the source for mozilla, you do the same thing. This is true if you don't modify the source and you use it 'as is'

If you decide to fix, patch, enhance, or otherwise modify an existing GPLed application, you must also provide the source code of your changes. Usually in the form of a patch to the original sources.

I hope this clarified your perception of the GPL and the obligations under it.

Regarding Closed source provided for free, such as Opera, you need to read the license.

[Chuck the Plant]

Thank you, rarsa. That was very helpful.

[GuestToo]

where does one get the Puppy source for 1.0.6?

i hacked the Rox 2.2 and 2.3 source code slightly so that running as root is not displayed on Rox windows ... i put my changes (i changed 1 line slightly) in my readme.txt file

i hacked Gaby so clicking the Save button saves to the hard drive ... i put all the changed source files in the package with the executable

a lot of Puppy's files are interpreted scripts (ash, bash, tcl/tk, puppybasic) ... the scripts are the source

Puppy's Linux kernel is about 1 meg (less than the size of a floppy) ... you can download the source at http://kernel.org/ ... the source for the Linux kernel is about 30 or 40 megs compressed ... unzipped, it's more like 100 megs ... i wouldn't expect the kernel source to be included on the Puppy cd

[Bruce B]

i hacked Gaby so clicking the Save button saves to the hard drive ... i put all the changed source files in the package with the executable

I had no idea you did that to Gaby. The save button saves to the hard disk?

Where did the save button save to before you hacked it? Outer space or something?

Very well done!!!

[Chuck the Plant]

Thanks, GuestToo.

I appreciate your help and patience with an obvious newbie.

[GuestToo]

Where did the save button save to before you hacked it?

see:
http://www.goosee.com/puppy/development/developer.htm
and
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=2960

Gaby seems to be a simple database in ram

the New, Save, Remove etc etc buttons seem to operate on each record in ram

if you don't explicitly save the records (book) to the hard drive by clicking Base, Write All, nothing is saved when it shuts down

so i hacked it slightly so that the Save button actully writes the records (book) to the hard drive, which might be what most people would expect it to do

[Bruce B]

Dear Puppy Pen Pals,

Thank all of you for the knowledge you've supplied. Puppy is fast becoming my favorite Linux distro. The community, like the OS, seems very friendly and helpful.

Bruce B, I promise my questions were at best well intentioned and at worst harmless. My comments about not wanting to hurt Linux were based on my (incomplete) understanding that the GPL functions by replicating itself throughout Linux and Open Source versions and modifications. I didn't want to give Linux or other software away without that legal protection that keeps proprietary software manufacturers from using open-source code for their own closed source development.

You're right about my over-inflated ego, though.

My appreciation for the prompt responses. Just as a matter of curiosity, where does one get the Puppy source for 1.0.6? I'm trying to learn more about the guts of Linux.

What are you trying to suggest? That someone could actually become conditioned such that they think there is inherently something wrong with copying software and giving it away?

If so, it seems logical to me. That's the way many proprietors would like to have us conditioned.

-------------------

One purchased software copy for one computer.

Q: What happens if the computer goes south?

A: You have to purchase new software for the new computer!

------------------

Of course, you could always write your own software, and bypass the proprietor, and his one sided EULA's.

Yes, but is it practical to write your own software? The answer is yes, it is very practical if you do it in a community. It has been done.

Where is the proprietor now, when you run Linux?

-------------------

Don't be reassured by other posters' comments. I can identify at least two risks and there may be more.

(1) The police will arrest you for running and sharing Linux. The district attorney will press crimminal charges. You will have to see the judge and answer for your actions.

If this happens, the whole Linux world will be watching, monitoring and reporting. The case will go high profile. You will become famous. The best legal minds in the world will be monitoring the District Attorney's actions. In the end they will put the DA in an asylum and you can continue running Linux.

(2) Darl McBride will get his attorneys after you (funded courtesy of Microsoft). He will bury you in paper work. If you are found guilty of infringing on Darl's precious intellectual property or DNA or anything at all, you will have to have to give him 12 billion dollars or spend the rest of your days in Utah State Prison.

Even in this scenario, all it not lost. The Linux community is full of activists. People on the outside will be appealing the decision on your behalf.

----------------

PS I posted this with Netscape. Has anyone ever tried to read the Netscape 4.x EULA and make sense of it? I say: it cannot be done.

All I know is I found it on their FTP server and it works.

[Bruce B]

Seriously G2 that was great.

Gaby really hurt me. I lost some crucial notes. After searching the disk for my notes I gave up.

I searched the use net and found posts about Gaby not saving.

After gathering more information, I installed a much newer version and it works great.

I did it all because of the save button

[Guest]

i hope Gaby works ok, and that i didn't introduce any bugs ... i didn't change it much

[Chuck the Plant]

What are you trying to suggest? That someone could actually become conditioned such that they think there is inherently something wrong with copying software and giving it away?

If so, it seems logical to me. That's the way many proprietors would like to have us conditioned.

Regretfully, I'm afraid that for many people a reluctance to copy software has become a default setting. I used to be an IT Admin in a Windows/Office dominated enviornment and assuring licensing compliance was a big part of my job.

Don't be reassured by other posters' comments. I can identify at least two risks and there may be more.

(1) The police will arrest you for running and sharing Linux. The district attorney will press crimminal charges. You will have to see the judge and answer for your actions.

If this happens, the whole Linux world will be watching, monitoring and reporting. The case will go high profile. You will become famous. The best legal minds in the world will be monitoring the District Attorney's actions. In the end they will put the DA in an asylum and you can continue running Linux.

(2) Darl McBride will get his attorneys after you (funded courtesy of Microsoft). He will bury you in paper work. If you are found guilty of infringing on Darl's precious intellectual property or DNA or anything at all, you will have to have to give him 12 billion dollars or spend the rest of your days in Utah State Prison.

Even in this scenario, all it not lost. The Linux community is full of activists. People on the outside will be appealing the decision on your behalf.

I enjoyed the rant about arrest and prison. Funny stuff.

Respectfully, I think you have an over inflated ego. In all my posts I've not spoken to anyone so directly as you.

#1 I don't believe you have enough clout to harm Linux.

#2 Who do you think you are that you fancy yourself as a distributor simply because you pass out Linux CD discs? In the heirarchy of distributors you are very low on the food chain.

When it comes to the over-inflated ego, my wife says the same thing. As for the rest of the particulars, I think you misconstrued the thrust of my question. As a long-time Linux user, you no doubt know that licenses like the GPL and groups like the Free Software Foundation were formed in the 1980s in response to companies stealing open source code and then locking it down under proprietary licenses.

I wasn't particularly worried about anyone hauling me off to jail. My question was about Puppy's place in the world of licensing and the regrettable but necessary role licensing plays in keeping awesome products like Puppy free in both ideological and free beer terms. That's what I meant when I talked about not anting to hurt Linux. The very helpful people in the forum have guided me toward a better undersatnding of this, for which I am very thankful.

As for the mention of distrobution, I tried to be clear that I meant "distribution" in terms of "giving this away to friends" as opposed to becoming a Linux distributor. I had no particular sense of my own clout. Linux grows larely by word of mouth, friends sharing with friends, and I wanted the copies I gave away and that would likely be replicated someday to include all provisions necessary to keep Puppy free in the Patrick Henry sense. Again, the community has helped me understand what is necessary to do this.

Seriously, though. A Utah jail. That's funny. I wonder if they'll let me bring my Puppy PC?